|
So we all agree that in a perfectly symmetrical situation two identical clones will fight in the exact same way and that the fight will end in a draw?
Awesome.
|
Assuming perfect copies:
% initial condition
clone = you;
your_move = function(you);
clone_move = function(clone);
while your_move == clone_move
your_move = function(clone_move);
clone_move = function(your_move);
end
Infinite Loop
For me...it'll probably end with the clone and I sitting on the floor until we both died of dehydration or something.
|
On April 12 2011 04:36 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:30 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:19 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:12 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment. By saying that it is "entirely" influenced, you're affirming it is 100% caused by experience and environment, which I think isn't safe to assume it is completely correct. Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I also believe great part of our decisions are influenced by this, but don't you think there might be something else in there? Like... If you believe we have souls and this kind of stuff, maybe there's 1% of it that is influenced by something else other than our experiences. Maybe there's another variables that we haven't included yet, maybe we don't even know they exist, maybe we're not even capable of understanding them. //tx I believe our soul is our mind and that is what experience effects. That is a debate that is entirely different from this, however. Mythito, your argument seems to be: You're dumb, you can't read, you're an idiot. Why are you even posting here still? You haven't contributed in the slightest bit to a healthy argument. Several of your posts need to be modded. Do us a favor and leave. On April 12 2011 04:29 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will Not randomly in a meaning out of our control. Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6. For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question. A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them. //tx In theory, two identical people would pick the same numbers. All of biology points to that. As far as actions, it's a known, almost trivially true fact that the uncertainty principle applies to things in your brain. Furthermore, decaying C-12 atoms send out random emissions that change, slightly, the mass of your body at various points as well as the impulses sent to your muscles, possibly altering your thoughts, DNA and actions in small but compounding ways. Since it is currently and theoretically impossible to tell when a C-12 atom will decay, it would be impossible to build a clone in which all atoms decay in the same way at the same time. Even if you could, there's likely random background radiation in the room you're fighting in, and the light source would probably not be able to bathe the room in photons so equally that each individual emission was mirrored on the other side. Therefore, no matter what you think about free will or determinism, the actions of the clones will eventually diverge and one will win the fight. While you are correct here, for the sake of the argument, it has been assumed for the entire duration of this thread that such technology and knowledge was available in the creation of our clone. He is a perfect copy, down to the exact age of each molecule. Therefore, your point doesn't stand true in our situation. Wrong conclusion. We can use quantum theory to prove that it is fundamentally impossible, even with perfect reconstruction, to create a pencil with a perfectly sharp end that stands on its tip. This is because distribution of mass can never, even ignoring radioactive decay, be avoided in anything. This means that at some point, our "pencil" will have a greater mass on one side, and it will fall over. The same applies for humans. Tiny fluxuations in your mass will eventually lead to different results over time, and that is not an error that can be removed by increasing technology or anything like that. It's basically a fundamental law of the universe as we know it that you cannot create a perfect copy of something and expect it to behave in exactly the same way. Furthermore, radioactive decay is caused by quantum mechanical laws. Age of an atom is completely irrelevant in determining when it will decay, so you can't actually dismiss that point.
Opening with saying ...theory... to prove... is pretty odd to say the least.
You are arguing with the example given, not with the end result. You are trying to disprove that such a scenario is impossible. I could care less about that. Of course it is impossible to reconstruct a perfect clone, but that is our scenario. Stop picking out flaws in the example and instead focus on the end point.
And Mythito.. why are you even here? Quote one good thing you've argued here that is even remotely correct.
|
I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
|
There can't be a clone of me because the universe can't contain the awesomeness of 2 me LOL
|
On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote:
I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic.
However, in a vacuum, the fight would stall.
|
I ask him what's his secret to be that awesome
|
On April 12 2011 04:41 holynorth wrote:
And Mythito.. why are you even here? Quote one good thing you've argued here that is even remotely correct.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 12 2011 03:09 Mythito wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 02:55 bigbeau wrote:
mythito are you aware that 1+1 = 2?
thats not an assumption...just because i phrase it that way doesnt mean its an assumption. did i say it was how you phrased it that made me think it was an assumption? if i did i meant to say that it was you stating a fact that was an unproven assumption that made it sound like an assumption bigbeau are you aware that unicorns exist? see? just because you say it doesn't make it true either On April 12 2011 03:37 Mythito wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 03:30 bigbeau wrote:
so far the only thing that is supposedly random is atom decay according to some interpretations of quantum physics. oh so after explicitly telling me randomness didn't exist you're conceding it's possibility? Show nested quote + considering that quantum physics is an unfinished science, i see no point in arguing that point one way or another. so philosophy shouldn't exist at all? On April 12 2011 02:47 Mythito wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 02:40 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 02:28 sTromSK wrote:On April 12 2011 02:19 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 02:18 Mythito wrote:On April 12 2011 02:12 bigbeau wrote:
mythito are you aware that randomness doesnt exist? bahahhah source me proof of that one. and not some philosophical argument, give me definitive proof if you're gonna walk in and just state something. Tell me one thing that is random, and I will prove how it is not random. Algorithmic probability Chaos theory Cryptography Game theory Information theory Pattern recognition Probability theory Quantum mechanics Statistics Statistical mechanics Those are all the fields that deal with "randomness" go research it if you want. please elaborate me how quantum mechanics isnt random.. In my opinion, for the sake of this debate - if the room is identical and symetrical (definition?) for both clones but the electromagnetic interactions between atoms are driven by the laws of quantum mechanics identical to those in our universe there would be some randomness in the mental processes or physical execution. and you can also elaborate me why you consider only materialistic theory of mind, do you have any proof this is the right one? (dualistic being the other) We are presuming that their experiences and memories are identical as well as the physical build up. Looks like body and mind are identical, no matter which theory we follow. I never meant to say Quantum physics was or isn't randomness, just that those fields of study were the ones relating to randomness and that he should go look it up and read on it a bit. I don't know enough about the field to make any assumptions about it, but I still don't believe random is possible. I read up the wiki page and the only random thing on there is that we can't find a time-pattern on a few wave-functions. Sounds like this field needs more research before it means anything. oh i'm sorry, did i ask for further reading on the subject? pretty sure i asked for proof... and that sure sounds like making assumptions about it. (i know it wasn't you but you backed it up) On April 12 2011 01:56 Mythito wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 01:32 holynorth wrote:
Wait.. So you are telling me that you acknowledge that the environment is perfectly symmetrical, a vacuum like the poster above mentioned, and that our two subjects are exactly identical, but there is still variance?
yes i'm acknowledging that we're in a perfectly symmetrical vacuum-like environment, i fucking read the OP unlike so many other of you dumb asses. Show nested quote +If they have the exact same thought when they throw a bunch, and are both identical in their physical build up, their punch will fail the same way. no, i don't think there punch will fail(fall?) the same way because if i throw a punch at a punching bag twice in a row being as identical as possible in "physical build up"(?) the punches will still have wildly varying force, and i know that isn't proof itself because it's possible that it varies *only* because i just threw the last punch, but i don't believe that's the case and i think it would vary even if i went back in time and threw it again, and it's more evidence than you're giving. how is that fact? what is your definition of fact? since when is anything in this thread fact? you are the worst philosophy student ever. Show nested quote + But we are just assuming that such a thing exists for the sake of conversation. you're also assuming that you're right for the sake of being able to go around saying you're right On April 12 2011 01:30 Mythito wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 01:15 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 01:10 Mythito wrote:On April 12 2011 00:59 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 00:57 Mythito wrote:On April 12 2011 00:46 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 00:31 FaZ- wrote:
As someone who's wrestled over 200 matches, I have to say that there are indeed a lot of dynamic attributes. It can be something as simple as how far to one side you stand at the start, how your rhythm is internally, or which foot you stepped forward with first- and it can completely change the pattern of the bout. Even in a completely mirrored arena, the playout would be very different.
The concept of "draws" in fights doesn't really exist, and pretending that anyone is conditioned enough to algorithmically determine a response is just silly. Someone would win: there is an "any given Sunday" aspect to physical contests and that's part of what makes them so exciting. And as a Philosophy major and someone who has taken over 200 hours of philosophy, yes it would happen. You don't understand how important environment and experience are to thought. They are the sole contributors to thought (unless you want to make an argument for God). You would both be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time. You would both decide to throw a left hand jab or a right hook, at the exact same time. You would both block them in the exact same way. You would both take hits in the exact same way. You would both tire and collapse in the exact same way. This would be a stalemate. On April 12 2011 00:41 Mythito wrote:On April 11 2011 22:03 GreEny K wrote:On April 10 2011 06:34 Kashll wrote:
There's no way you would do the exact same move, you guys are absurd.
You both would be in different environments. I.E. one person would be in one place in the room, and the other would be in a different place. This change in environment alone will spawn different reactions, and eventually lead to different moves and a dynamic fight. Except that the room is the exact same in all positions... I would expect that both of me would get beat on. If I throw the punch, the other me would as well... and both would connect or get dodged. It would continue like that the whole time. try kicking a punching bag 100 times with the exact same force in the exact same place on the bag AND on your foot. it's really, *REALLY*, hard.. even if both clones open up with an exact same front kick, it's going to yield different results, even if minute differences, then it's going to snowball into a dynamic fight. Where are you getting this? Where are these differences coming from. You are the same person with the same environment. What other variables are there? Stop making shit up. ahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha "stop making shit up" ... in a thread about hypothetical exact duplicate clones in a 100% perfectly symetrical flawless environment lawl. How does that compare to including random variables when we are discussing a situation without random variables? go look at the OP, find me one mention of 'random variables', i'll wait. back? couldn't find any could you? that's cuz it wasn't part of the question. in other words, the hypothetical question was "in a fight that is as perfectly symmetrical as theoretically possible, would there still be variance?" my hypothesis is yes, because i believe 2 exact duplicates could have variances due to muscle synapses firing minutely different randomly. even if the difference was just .00000000001% or less, it'll eventually snowball. Find what random variables? I'm saying they don't exist, you are the one creating them. You are trying so hard to stretch this out to be correct. Sadly, however, you're still wrong. For the entire thread the idea has been a similar environment - this applies to you and the guy above you. There is no blinding sun. You are in an exact environment. You are the exact same person in the exact same environment. Your brain, your organs, your fibers are going under the exact same stimulus and strain. If they were to randomly fire, they would fire at the exact same time. Happy birthday Necrosaint. mm good argument for a theoretical discussion, here let me try: you're wrong see now i'm winning. okay but seriously, let me try to explain this again. you stated "we are discussing a situation without random variables?" but how do we know there are no random variables? where did you read this? the OP said "some entity that is exactly the same as you are both mentally and physically" my hypothesis is that "some entity that is exactly the same as you are both mentally and physically" will have random variation from you due to actions like punches and kicks being extremely difficult to throw in the exact way you want them to land. you cannot discard that by saying "THE CLONE WILL HAVE NO RANDOM VARIATION THAT IS A FACT AND YOU ARE MAKING SHIT UP AND YOU ARE WRONG". you can say "i believe the punches and kicks will land the exact same without fail because punches and kicks blah blah blah something something" but if you're a philosophy major and you don't already know this then GL putting that degree to use 
in fact, it seems like the ONLY thing i'm doing here is denying your shitty, terribly argument... so what are you doing here?
|
4 Gate vs. 4 Gate with a lot of back-and-forth in the middle ground until we eventually ran out of units and resources, in which case there would be a simultaneous probe all-in, which would meet in the middle in an epic micro battle. The last two probes would both have 5 HP and throw one last whack at each other and it'd be a draw...
|
On April 12 2011 04:41 holynorth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:36 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:30 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:19 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:12 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment. By saying that it is "entirely" influenced, you're affirming it is 100% caused by experience and environment, which I think isn't safe to assume it is completely correct. Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I also believe great part of our decisions are influenced by this, but don't you think there might be something else in there? Like... If you believe we have souls and this kind of stuff, maybe there's 1% of it that is influenced by something else other than our experiences. Maybe there's another variables that we haven't included yet, maybe we don't even know they exist, maybe we're not even capable of understanding them. //tx I believe our soul is our mind and that is what experience effects. That is a debate that is entirely different from this, however. Mythito, your argument seems to be: You're dumb, you can't read, you're an idiot. Why are you even posting here still? You haven't contributed in the slightest bit to a healthy argument. Several of your posts need to be modded. Do us a favor and leave. On April 12 2011 04:29 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will Not randomly in a meaning out of our control. Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6. For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question. A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them. //tx In theory, two identical people would pick the same numbers. All of biology points to that. As far as actions, it's a known, almost trivially true fact that the uncertainty principle applies to things in your brain. Furthermore, decaying C-12 atoms send out random emissions that change, slightly, the mass of your body at various points as well as the impulses sent to your muscles, possibly altering your thoughts, DNA and actions in small but compounding ways. Since it is currently and theoretically impossible to tell when a C-12 atom will decay, it would be impossible to build a clone in which all atoms decay in the same way at the same time. Even if you could, there's likely random background radiation in the room you're fighting in, and the light source would probably not be able to bathe the room in photons so equally that each individual emission was mirrored on the other side. Therefore, no matter what you think about free will or determinism, the actions of the clones will eventually diverge and one will win the fight. While you are correct here, for the sake of the argument, it has been assumed for the entire duration of this thread that such technology and knowledge was available in the creation of our clone. He is a perfect copy, down to the exact age of each molecule. Therefore, your point doesn't stand true in our situation. Wrong conclusion. We can use quantum theory to prove that it is fundamentally impossible, even with perfect reconstruction, to create a pencil with a perfectly sharp end that stands on its tip. This is because distribution of mass can never, even ignoring radioactive decay, be avoided in anything. This means that at some point, our "pencil" will have a greater mass on one side, and it will fall over. The same applies for humans. Tiny fluxuations in your mass will eventually lead to different results over time, and that is not an error that can be removed by increasing technology or anything like that. It's basically a fundamental law of the universe as we know it that you cannot create a perfect copy of something and expect it to behave in exactly the same way. Furthermore, radioactive decay is caused by quantum mechanical laws. Age of an atom is completely irrelevant in determining when it will decay, so you can't actually dismiss that point. Opening with saying ...theory... to prove... is pretty odd to say the least. You are arguing with the example given, not with the end result. You are trying to disprove that such a scenario is impossible. I could care less about that. Of course it is impossible to reconstruct a perfect clone, but that is our scenario. Stop picking out flaws in the example and instead focus on the end point. And Mythito.. why are you even here? Quote one good thing you've argued here that is even remotely correct.
I'm not going to teach you science or anything, but theory doesn't mean "wild assumption by some physicists." We use the word theory because we recognize that it's impossible to prove anything empirically with complete accuracy. Generally "works in all observed situations, makes logical sense, and predicts the result of further experiments" is required before anything can become an accepted theory.
Anyways, I'm not trying to disprove that the scenario is possible for no reason, it's rather relevant given the other points of discussion. It's also impossible to start with perfect exact copies and expect them to stay as such for any length of time, by the way.
If you want to focus on the end point, the question is of determinism, free will, etc. or even how human brains determine which actions to take. Quantum mechanics has implications in all of those questions, and if you were to try to invent a universe where it didn't apply, you would get fundamentally different laws. In fact, I wouldn't even say humans have the capacity to predict or envision what things would look like in that situation without wild, unfounded conjecture leading the discussion. The answer is simply "no" and the assumptions required to bring this in to question invalidate every point of debating or discussing it.
|
On April 12 2011 04:46 holynorth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote:
I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic. However, in a vacuum, the fight would stall.
So, basically, the question is "If you discard everything that will make them act differently, will they act equally?"
I guess the answer is "yes", in this case.
//tx
|
On April 12 2011 04:46 holynorth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote:
I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic. However, in a vacuum, the fight would stall.
oh my god. now you are admitting we are right and you are wrong but you are still thinking you are right. you are assuming the OP said shit that he did not say. you are assuming that both the clone and original appeared simultaneously when he said that the clone appeared when the original entered the room. you are assuming the original didn't see the clone being created, whereas what the OP says actually infers the opposite.
Tschis is completely right when he says that you think the question is "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
|
On April 12 2011 04:48 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:41 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:36 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:30 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:19 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:12 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment. By saying that it is "entirely" influenced, you're affirming it is 100% caused by experience and environment, which I think isn't safe to assume it is completely correct. Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I also believe great part of our decisions are influenced by this, but don't you think there might be something else in there? Like... If you believe we have souls and this kind of stuff, maybe there's 1% of it that is influenced by something else other than our experiences. Maybe there's another variables that we haven't included yet, maybe we don't even know they exist, maybe we're not even capable of understanding them. //tx I believe our soul is our mind and that is what experience effects. That is a debate that is entirely different from this, however. Mythito, your argument seems to be: You're dumb, you can't read, you're an idiot. Why are you even posting here still? You haven't contributed in the slightest bit to a healthy argument. Several of your posts need to be modded. Do us a favor and leave. On April 12 2011 04:29 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will Not randomly in a meaning out of our control. Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6. For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question. A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them. //tx In theory, two identical people would pick the same numbers. All of biology points to that. As far as actions, it's a known, almost trivially true fact that the uncertainty principle applies to things in your brain. Furthermore, decaying C-12 atoms send out random emissions that change, slightly, the mass of your body at various points as well as the impulses sent to your muscles, possibly altering your thoughts, DNA and actions in small but compounding ways. Since it is currently and theoretically impossible to tell when a C-12 atom will decay, it would be impossible to build a clone in which all atoms decay in the same way at the same time. Even if you could, there's likely random background radiation in the room you're fighting in, and the light source would probably not be able to bathe the room in photons so equally that each individual emission was mirrored on the other side. Therefore, no matter what you think about free will or determinism, the actions of the clones will eventually diverge and one will win the fight. While you are correct here, for the sake of the argument, it has been assumed for the entire duration of this thread that such technology and knowledge was available in the creation of our clone. He is a perfect copy, down to the exact age of each molecule. Therefore, your point doesn't stand true in our situation. Wrong conclusion. We can use quantum theory to prove that it is fundamentally impossible, even with perfect reconstruction, to create a pencil with a perfectly sharp end that stands on its tip. This is because distribution of mass can never, even ignoring radioactive decay, be avoided in anything. This means that at some point, our "pencil" will have a greater mass on one side, and it will fall over. The same applies for humans. Tiny fluxuations in your mass will eventually lead to different results over time, and that is not an error that can be removed by increasing technology or anything like that. It's basically a fundamental law of the universe as we know it that you cannot create a perfect copy of something and expect it to behave in exactly the same way. Furthermore, radioactive decay is caused by quantum mechanical laws. Age of an atom is completely irrelevant in determining when it will decay, so you can't actually dismiss that point. Opening with saying ...theory... to prove... is pretty odd to say the least. You are arguing with the example given, not with the end result. You are trying to disprove that such a scenario is impossible. I could care less about that. Of course it is impossible to reconstruct a perfect clone, but that is our scenario. Stop picking out flaws in the example and instead focus on the end point. And Mythito.. why are you even here? Quote one good thing you've argued here that is even remotely correct. I'm not going to teach you science or anything, but theory doesn't mean "wild assumption by some physicists." We use the word theory because we recognize that it's impossible to prove anything empirically with complete accuracy. Generally "works in all observed situations, makes logical sense, and predicts the result of further experiments" is required before anything can become an accepted theory. Anyways, I'm not trying to disprove that the scenario is possible for no reason, it's rather relevant given the other points of discussion. It's also impossible to start with perfect exact copies and expect them to stay as such for any length of time, by the way. If you want to focus on the end point, the question is of determinism, free will, etc. or even how human brains determine which actions to take. Quantum mechanics has implications in all of those questions, and if you were to try to invent a universe where it didn't apply, you would get fundamentally different laws. In fact, I wouldn't even say humans have the capacity to predict or envision what things would look like in that situation without wild, unfounded conjecture leading the discussion. The answer is simply "no" and the assumptions required to bring this in to question invalidate every point of debating or discussing it.
I am under the impression that you have a large understanding of science. Because of that, I am more than confident that you know how much of a stretch it is to ever use the word 'prove' in science. We will never prove anything, just increase our certainty. Is that not correct?
And yes, it was also under my impression that this debate was over what path the brain will chose under certain situations. I believe that thought and choice is affected only by past experiences and your environment. Because of this, there would be no difference in actions taken when in a vacuum.
On April 12 2011 04:50 Tschis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:46 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote:
I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic. However, in a vacuum, the fight would stall. So, basically, the question is "If you discard everything that will make them act differently, will they act equally?" I guess the answer is "yes", in this case. //tx
No, there are several schools of thought and ideology that would disagree and say that they would not do the same thing in a vacuum because thought is not solely dependent on experience/environment.
|
On April 12 2011 04:50 Tschis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:46 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote:
I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic. However, in a vacuum, the fight would stall. So, basically, the question is "If you discard everything that will make them act differently, will they act equally?" I guess the answer is "yes", in this case. //tx
yeah that's the question that holynorth thinks he is answering, not the question that was asked by the OP
anyway, i'm gonna let sharkspider continue fighting this fight, as he seems even more intelligent than me, unlike holynorth who is retarded on so many different levels.
|
On April 12 2011 04:55 holynorth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:48 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:41 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:36 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:30 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:19 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:12 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment. By saying that it is "entirely" influenced, you're affirming it is 100% caused by experience and environment, which I think isn't safe to assume it is completely correct. Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I also believe great part of our decisions are influenced by this, but don't you think there might be something else in there? Like... If you believe we have souls and this kind of stuff, maybe there's 1% of it that is influenced by something else other than our experiences. Maybe there's another variables that we haven't included yet, maybe we don't even know they exist, maybe we're not even capable of understanding them. //tx I believe our soul is our mind and that is what experience effects. That is a debate that is entirely different from this, however. Mythito, your argument seems to be: You're dumb, you can't read, you're an idiot. Why are you even posting here still? You haven't contributed in the slightest bit to a healthy argument. Several of your posts need to be modded. Do us a favor and leave. On April 12 2011 04:29 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will Not randomly in a meaning out of our control. Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6. For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question. A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them. //tx In theory, two identical people would pick the same numbers. All of biology points to that. As far as actions, it's a known, almost trivially true fact that the uncertainty principle applies to things in your brain. Furthermore, decaying C-12 atoms send out random emissions that change, slightly, the mass of your body at various points as well as the impulses sent to your muscles, possibly altering your thoughts, DNA and actions in small but compounding ways. Since it is currently and theoretically impossible to tell when a C-12 atom will decay, it would be impossible to build a clone in which all atoms decay in the same way at the same time. Even if you could, there's likely random background radiation in the room you're fighting in, and the light source would probably not be able to bathe the room in photons so equally that each individual emission was mirrored on the other side. Therefore, no matter what you think about free will or determinism, the actions of the clones will eventually diverge and one will win the fight. While you are correct here, for the sake of the argument, it has been assumed for the entire duration of this thread that such technology and knowledge was available in the creation of our clone. He is a perfect copy, down to the exact age of each molecule. Therefore, your point doesn't stand true in our situation. Wrong conclusion. We can use quantum theory to prove that it is fundamentally impossible, even with perfect reconstruction, to create a pencil with a perfectly sharp end that stands on its tip. This is because distribution of mass can never, even ignoring radioactive decay, be avoided in anything. This means that at some point, our "pencil" will have a greater mass on one side, and it will fall over. The same applies for humans. Tiny fluxuations in your mass will eventually lead to different results over time, and that is not an error that can be removed by increasing technology or anything like that. It's basically a fundamental law of the universe as we know it that you cannot create a perfect copy of something and expect it to behave in exactly the same way. Furthermore, radioactive decay is caused by quantum mechanical laws. Age of an atom is completely irrelevant in determining when it will decay, so you can't actually dismiss that point. Opening with saying ...theory... to prove... is pretty odd to say the least. You are arguing with the example given, not with the end result. You are trying to disprove that such a scenario is impossible. I could care less about that. Of course it is impossible to reconstruct a perfect clone, but that is our scenario. Stop picking out flaws in the example and instead focus on the end point. And Mythito.. why are you even here? Quote one good thing you've argued here that is even remotely correct. I'm not going to teach you science or anything, but theory doesn't mean "wild assumption by some physicists." We use the word theory because we recognize that it's impossible to prove anything empirically with complete accuracy. Generally "works in all observed situations, makes logical sense, and predicts the result of further experiments" is required before anything can become an accepted theory. Anyways, I'm not trying to disprove that the scenario is possible for no reason, it's rather relevant given the other points of discussion. It's also impossible to start with perfect exact copies and expect them to stay as such for any length of time, by the way. If you want to focus on the end point, the question is of determinism, free will, etc. or even how human brains determine which actions to take. Quantum mechanics has implications in all of those questions, and if you were to try to invent a universe where it didn't apply, you would get fundamentally different laws. In fact, I wouldn't even say humans have the capacity to predict or envision what things would look like in that situation without wild, unfounded conjecture leading the discussion. The answer is simply "no" and the assumptions required to bring this in to question invalidate every point of debating or discussing it. I am under the impression that you have a large understanding of science. Because of that, I am more than confident that you know how much of a stretch it is to ever use the word 'prove' in science. We will never prove anything, just increase our certainty. Is that not correct? And yes, it was also under my impression that this debate was over what path the brain will chose under certain situations. I believe that thought and choice is affected only by past experiences and your environment. Because of this, there would be no difference in actions taken when in a vacuum.
Sorry, I'll clarify the use of proof a little. It is acceptable for a textbook to give a question that says "prove, using quantum mechanics, that no pencil can be created that stands on its end without falling over, indefinitely" (which is where I got the example), because it works under the assumption that the theory holds. You are free to question the theory, but not the results, and so far, results have implied strongly that mass fluxuates, so it is difficult to argue that mass does not fluxuate in the brain, or in pencils, etc. because proof techniques are used to extrapolate those results from the facts we accept.
So yes, I'll give that you can deny the current state of quantum theory and the accumulated results of all science performed on the topic and reach a situation where it's possible to have a "brain" function with no random elements. That being said, doing this would also assume, implicitly, that there is actually a function of age that determines radioactive decay, and that all studies on the matter have had the bad luck of observing this function in such a way that it appears to be going by a probability-based decay identical in every way to the poisson distribution in mathematics. In other words, not likely by anyone's standards.
|
On April 12 2011 04:55 holynorth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:48 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:41 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:36 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:30 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:19 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:12 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment. By saying that it is "entirely" influenced, you're affirming it is 100% caused by experience and environment, which I think isn't safe to assume it is completely correct. Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I also believe great part of our decisions are influenced by this, but don't you think there might be something else in there? Like... If you believe we have souls and this kind of stuff, maybe there's 1% of it that is influenced by something else other than our experiences. Maybe there's another variables that we haven't included yet, maybe we don't even know they exist, maybe we're not even capable of understanding them. //tx I believe our soul is our mind and that is what experience effects. That is a debate that is entirely different from this, however. Mythito, your argument seems to be: You're dumb, you can't read, you're an idiot. Why are you even posting here still? You haven't contributed in the slightest bit to a healthy argument. Several of your posts need to be modded. Do us a favor and leave. On April 12 2011 04:29 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will Not randomly in a meaning out of our control. Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6. For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question. A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them. //tx In theory, two identical people would pick the same numbers. All of biology points to that. As far as actions, it's a known, almost trivially true fact that the uncertainty principle applies to things in your brain. Furthermore, decaying C-12 atoms send out random emissions that change, slightly, the mass of your body at various points as well as the impulses sent to your muscles, possibly altering your thoughts, DNA and actions in small but compounding ways. Since it is currently and theoretically impossible to tell when a C-12 atom will decay, it would be impossible to build a clone in which all atoms decay in the same way at the same time. Even if you could, there's likely random background radiation in the room you're fighting in, and the light source would probably not be able to bathe the room in photons so equally that each individual emission was mirrored on the other side. Therefore, no matter what you think about free will or determinism, the actions of the clones will eventually diverge and one will win the fight. While you are correct here, for the sake of the argument, it has been assumed for the entire duration of this thread that such technology and knowledge was available in the creation of our clone. He is a perfect copy, down to the exact age of each molecule. Therefore, your point doesn't stand true in our situation. Wrong conclusion. We can use quantum theory to prove that it is fundamentally impossible, even with perfect reconstruction, to create a pencil with a perfectly sharp end that stands on its tip. This is because distribution of mass can never, even ignoring radioactive decay, be avoided in anything. This means that at some point, our "pencil" will have a greater mass on one side, and it will fall over. The same applies for humans. Tiny fluxuations in your mass will eventually lead to different results over time, and that is not an error that can be removed by increasing technology or anything like that. It's basically a fundamental law of the universe as we know it that you cannot create a perfect copy of something and expect it to behave in exactly the same way. Furthermore, radioactive decay is caused by quantum mechanical laws. Age of an atom is completely irrelevant in determining when it will decay, so you can't actually dismiss that point. Opening with saying ...theory... to prove... is pretty odd to say the least. You are arguing with the example given, not with the end result. You are trying to disprove that such a scenario is impossible. I could care less about that. Of course it is impossible to reconstruct a perfect clone, but that is our scenario. Stop picking out flaws in the example and instead focus on the end point. And Mythito.. why are you even here? Quote one good thing you've argued here that is even remotely correct. I'm not going to teach you science or anything, but theory doesn't mean "wild assumption by some physicists." We use the word theory because we recognize that it's impossible to prove anything empirically with complete accuracy. Generally "works in all observed situations, makes logical sense, and predicts the result of further experiments" is required before anything can become an accepted theory. Anyways, I'm not trying to disprove that the scenario is possible for no reason, it's rather relevant given the other points of discussion. It's also impossible to start with perfect exact copies and expect them to stay as such for any length of time, by the way. If you want to focus on the end point, the question is of determinism, free will, etc. or even how human brains determine which actions to take. Quantum mechanics has implications in all of those questions, and if you were to try to invent a universe where it didn't apply, you would get fundamentally different laws. In fact, I wouldn't even say humans have the capacity to predict or envision what things would look like in that situation without wild, unfounded conjecture leading the discussion. The answer is simply "no" and the assumptions required to bring this in to question invalidate every point of debating or discussing it. I am under the impression that you have a large understanding of science. Because of that, I am more than confident that you know how much of a stretch it is to ever use the word 'prove' in science. We will never prove anything, just increase our certainty. Is that not correct? And yes, it was also under my impression that this debate was over what path the brain will chose under certain situations. I believe that thought and choice is affected only by past experiences and your environment. Because of this, there would be no difference in actions taken when in a vacuum. Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:50 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:46 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:43 Tschis wrote:
I feel like so many restrictions are being added that it's almost as if the question was "If they do the same thing, will they do the same thing?"
It's getting to the point where I almost feel like I have to go too far to make a point =P
For instance, even if the room is symetrical, there are more variables outside of it, like distance to other places, which means the gravity will be stronger or weaker in some places, which might react to the individuals and alter their "variables".
Also, if the clone is created the exact moment you enter the room, he'd have to be created somewhere else (you can't have 2 objects in the same place), so from this you can already know someone might have to move to the other side of the room, or at least have different experiences concerning the place.
You could also argue that the original saw the clone being created, and that doesn't stand true to the clone, he was created in a moment where the original individual didn't have this knowledge yet.
//tx
Once again, this is more complaints on the scenario. Nobody is disagreeing that if there were slight variables such as the ones that you mentioned that the fight would by dynamic. However, in a vacuum, the fight would stall. So, basically, the question is "If you discard everything that will make them act differently, will they act equally?" I guess the answer is "yes", in this case. //tx No, there are several schools of thought and ideology that would disagree and say that they would not do the same thing in a vacuum because thought is not solely dependent on experience/environment.
I've been trying to say all along that maybe there's more than experience environment involved and I'm being denied every single thing that I say.
Then at the end you make exactly the same point I tried to make...
//tx
|
On April 12 2011 04:36 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:30 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:19 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:12 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment. By saying that it is "entirely" influenced, you're affirming it is 100% caused by experience and environment, which I think isn't safe to assume it is completely correct. Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I also believe great part of our decisions are influenced by this, but don't you think there might be something else in there? Like... If you believe we have souls and this kind of stuff, maybe there's 1% of it that is influenced by something else other than our experiences. Maybe there's another variables that we haven't included yet, maybe we don't even know they exist, maybe we're not even capable of understanding them. //tx I believe our soul is our mind and that is what experience effects. That is a debate that is entirely different from this, however. Mythito, your argument seems to be: You're dumb, you can't read, you're an idiot. Why are you even posting here still? You haven't contributed in the slightest bit to a healthy argument. Several of your posts need to be modded. Do us a favor and leave. On April 12 2011 04:29 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will Not randomly in a meaning out of our control. Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6. For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question. A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them. //tx In theory, two identical people would pick the same numbers. All of biology points to that. As far as actions, it's a known, almost trivially true fact that the uncertainty principle applies to things in your brain. Furthermore, decaying C-12 atoms send out random emissions that change, slightly, the mass of your body at various points as well as the impulses sent to your muscles, possibly altering your thoughts, DNA and actions in small but compounding ways. Since it is currently and theoretically impossible to tell when a C-12 atom will decay, it would be impossible to build a clone in which all atoms decay in the same way at the same time. Even if you could, there's likely random background radiation in the room you're fighting in, and the light source would probably not be able to bathe the room in photons so equally that each individual emission was mirrored on the other side. Therefore, no matter what you think about free will or determinism, the actions of the clones will eventually diverge and one will win the fight. While you are correct here, for the sake of the argument, it has been assumed for the entire duration of this thread that such technology and knowledge was available in the creation of our clone. He is a perfect copy, down to the exact age of each molecule. Therefore, your point doesn't stand true in our situation. Wrong conclusion. We can use quantum theory to prove that it is fundamentally impossible, even with perfect reconstruction, to create a pencil with a perfectly sharp end that stands on its tip. This is because distribution of mass can never, even ignoring radioactive decay, be avoided in anything. This means that at some point, our "pencil" will have a greater mass on one side, and it will fall over. The same applies for humans. Tiny fluxuations in your mass will eventually lead to different results over time, and that is not an error that can be removed by increasing technology or anything like that. It's basically a fundamental law of the universe as we know it that you cannot create a perfect copy of something and expect it to behave in exactly the same way. Furthermore, radioactive decay is caused by quantum mechanical laws. Age of an atom is completely irrelevant in determining when it will decay, so you can't actually dismiss that point.
I find this pretty interesting.
But I still don't see where this randomness comes from?
It seems like people are saying "We can't predict it, so it's random", but all we know is that "we can't predict it" and with that knowledge it seems more reasonable to assume that we don't have the correct tools or understanding to do so than to start drawing conclusions about new phenomenon. In order to say it is random one would also have to disregard causality, even if only for certain circumstances, and I don't think some unreliable measurements warrants a conclusion that cause and effect are no longer in play.
|
My clone and I would probably merge into an Archon.
|
On April 12 2011 05:11 Sablar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 04:36 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:30 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 04:19 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:12 holynorth wrote:On April 12 2011 03:53 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 03:49 bigbeau wrote:This is the same as saying their actions are pre-determined. thats exactly what im saying. Except that the most "accepted?" line of thinking is that we have free will and act accordingly to our wishes and "feelings". Unless you're one of those who believe everything is written by God or whoever, and that we can't change our fates etc etc. //tx Sure. But our "free will" is entirely influenced by our experiences and environment. By saying that it is "entirely" influenced, you're affirming it is 100% caused by experience and environment, which I think isn't safe to assume it is completely correct. Of course I can't prove you wrong, and I also believe great part of our decisions are influenced by this, but don't you think there might be something else in there? Like... If you believe we have souls and this kind of stuff, maybe there's 1% of it that is influenced by something else other than our experiences. Maybe there's another variables that we haven't included yet, maybe we don't even know they exist, maybe we're not even capable of understanding them. //tx I believe our soul is our mind and that is what experience effects. That is a debate that is entirely different from this, however. Mythito, your argument seems to be: You're dumb, you can't read, you're an idiot. Why are you even posting here still? You haven't contributed in the slightest bit to a healthy argument. Several of your posts need to be modded. Do us a favor and leave. On April 12 2011 04:29 SharkSpider wrote:On April 12 2011 04:24 Tschis wrote:On April 12 2011 04:14 bigbeau wrote:
and if its not. and our choices are made randomly, then we are not free either. see: argument against free will Not randomly in a meaning out of our control. Random like I want to pick number 5, but maybe my clone will choose number 6. For no aparently reason. It appears random to an outsider, so that's why I call it random. But both individuals had their reason to choose their numbers. I just don't believe they'll always pick the same number just because they were asked the same question. A computer can't choose a random number, we understand that because we created the computers, so we know how they work. We don't completely understand humans and their brain. So we can't be sure of how they work, so we can't affirm how exactly they'll act because we can't predict every single variable in them. //tx In theory, two identical people would pick the same numbers. All of biology points to that. As far as actions, it's a known, almost trivially true fact that the uncertainty principle applies to things in your brain. Furthermore, decaying C-12 atoms send out random emissions that change, slightly, the mass of your body at various points as well as the impulses sent to your muscles, possibly altering your thoughts, DNA and actions in small but compounding ways. Since it is currently and theoretically impossible to tell when a C-12 atom will decay, it would be impossible to build a clone in which all atoms decay in the same way at the same time. Even if you could, there's likely random background radiation in the room you're fighting in, and the light source would probably not be able to bathe the room in photons so equally that each individual emission was mirrored on the other side. Therefore, no matter what you think about free will or determinism, the actions of the clones will eventually diverge and one will win the fight. While you are correct here, for the sake of the argument, it has been assumed for the entire duration of this thread that such technology and knowledge was available in the creation of our clone. He is a perfect copy, down to the exact age of each molecule. Therefore, your point doesn't stand true in our situation. Wrong conclusion. We can use quantum theory to prove that it is fundamentally impossible, even with perfect reconstruction, to create a pencil with a perfectly sharp end that stands on its tip. This is because distribution of mass can never, even ignoring radioactive decay, be avoided in anything. This means that at some point, our "pencil" will have a greater mass on one side, and it will fall over. The same applies for humans. Tiny fluxuations in your mass will eventually lead to different results over time, and that is not an error that can be removed by increasing technology or anything like that. It's basically a fundamental law of the universe as we know it that you cannot create a perfect copy of something and expect it to behave in exactly the same way. Furthermore, radioactive decay is caused by quantum mechanical laws. Age of an atom is completely irrelevant in determining when it will decay, so you can't actually dismiss that point. I find this pretty interesting. But I still don't see where this randomness comes from? It seems like people are saying "We can't predict it, so it's random", but all we know is that "we can't predict it" and with that knowledge it seems more reasonable to assume that we don't have the correct tools or understanding to do so than to start drawing conclusions about new phenomenon. In order to say it is random one would also have to disregard causality, even if only for certain circumstances, and I don't think some unreliable measurements warrants a conclusion that cause and effect are no longer in play.
That's generally why quantum theory is hard to understand, to the extent that you can work with it without really knowing what's going on. (I'm nowhere near understanding the theories to their fullest extent, but a lot of the early discoveries were fairly simple) The first reaction is "well if it's random can't we go see what it is?" The problem is that doing so fundamentally changes the way we see things work, and not in the sense that putting a thermometer in your mouth slightly changes your temperature.
The classic example is the double-slit experiment. (Very simplified) A bit of an overview is that electrons are particles, but when we shoot them at double slits they diffract just like photons do, so they act as a wave. This is wierd, so we shoot them one at a time, and they still diffract. Yes, one particle exhibits properties that do not exist unless you have a wave. So scientists are all wtf, and set up a checker to figure out which slit the electron is going through, and all the sudden it starts just going through one or the other, no diffraction. The leading explanation is that something in the universe was contingent on this particle going through one slit, so it was forced to take on non-random properties in order to go through, but that in the prior situation, there was no data available in the universe as to the location of the particle, so it was literally treated as a field of 'where it might be' and this field exhibited wave properties when the board had to figure out where the electron ended up after going through the slits. Basically, the fact we can garner is that if the universe knew where the heck this electron was, it would not diffract. Therefore, since it did diffract, we take that the universe did not know where this electron was.
It's a bit wierd to think of the universe as having imperfect data about things, but that's what everything we know suggests. The good news is that they exhibit such an intuitive probabilistic behavior that things make sense as soon as you go to a macroscopic scale. I'm not sure if you can throw out causation because of this, because whenever something causative comes in to play, the random elements are forced to exist within a realm of uncertainty that allows the causative act to proceed as usual.
I wouldn't deny the work of the world's best scientists and mathematicians offhand like that, though. Measurments associated with theory-building experiments are as precise as humanly possible, and beyond the realm of typical error, given the number of times people have checked them.
|
I'd kick his ass, then eat his heart to absorb his unique powers.
Wait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
